On 1/24/14, 8:47 AM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
> The branch will be renamed tonight in preparation for building beta 2. I will make this change start building beta 2 at 10:00PM EST (UTC -5) so please ensure the auto tester is not using the release branch in order prevent any complications when it is renamed. Also just to verify that I am not causing any additional issues, the tags (aka version numbers) for the release will be as follows:
>
>     2.65.0-b2
>
I may not have been all there this morning when I wrote this response. Here's what will be happening:

     1) The "release" branch will be renamed "2.65.0"
     2) The next tag will be "v2.65.0-b2"
     3) The beta 1 tag will NOT be renamed.

The one question I have remaining is: Are there any issues with removing the leading zero from the minor release number? Should it be 2.065.0 instead?

Hopefully, with the answer to the previous question, this puts an end to all discussions pertaining to branching, tags, and naming contentions so we can focus on the things that really matter.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Andrew Edwards <edwards.ac@gmail.com>wrote:

>  On 1/24/14, 8:47 AM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
>
> The branch will be renamed tonight in preparation for building beta 2. I will make this change start building beta 2 at 10:00PM EST (UTC -5) so please ensure the auto tester is not using the release branch in order prevent any complications when it is renamed. Also just to verify that I am not causing any additional issues, the tags (aka version numbers) for the release will be as follows:
>
>     2.65.0-b2
>
>  I may not have been all there this morning when I wrote this response.
> Here's what will be happening:
>
>     1) The "release" branch will be renamed "2.65.0"
>

I'd make that "2.65" so the branch can be used for hotfixes (which is what Brad Roberts is looking for). I've updated the wiki to reflect this.


>     2) The next tag will be "v2.65.0-b2"
>     3) The beta 1 tag will NOT be renamed.
>
> The one question I have remaining is: Are there any issues with removing the leading zero from the minor release number? Should it be 2.065.0 instead?
>
> Hopefully, with the answer to the previous question, this puts an end to all discussions pertaining to branching, tags, and naming contentions so we can focus on the things that really matter.
>

On 1/24/14 12:37 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
> On 1/24/14, 8:47 AM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
>> The branch will be renamed tonight in preparation for building beta 2. I will make this change
>> start building beta 2 at 10:00PM EST (UTC -5) so please ensure the auto tester is not using the
>> release branch in order prevent any complications when it is renamed. Also just to verify that I
>> am not causing any additional issues, the tags (aka version numbers) for the release will be as
>> follows:
>>
>>     2.65.0-b2
>>
> I may not have been all there this morning when I wrote this response. Here's what will be happening:
>
>      1) The "release" branch will be renamed "2.65.0"
>      2) The next tag will be "v2.65.0-b2"
>      3) The beta 1 tag will NOT be renamed.
>
> The one question I have remaining is: Are there any issues with removing the leading zero from the
> minor release number? Should it be 2.065.0 instead?
>
> Hopefully, with the answer to the previous question, this puts an end to all discussions pertaining
> to branching, tags, and naming contentions so we can focus on the things that really matter.

Why not call the branch 2.065, like it was for a while and similar to every other branch and build number we've used forever?  It shouldn't contain the trailing .0 as the branch is for the entire 2.065 series, not just one build.  I'm less concerned with the leading 0 in the second tier, though that naming scheme has been used for the entire life of the D project and would only cause problems if we somehow get more than 999 releases.  I see no reason to change it.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 1/24/14, 4:34 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 1/24/14 12:37 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
>> On 1/24/14, 8:47 AM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
>>> The branch will be renamed tonight in preparation for building beta 2. I will make this change
>>> start building beta 2 at 10:00PM EST (UTC -5) so please ensure the auto tester is not using the
>>> release branch in order prevent any complications when it is renamed. Also just to verify that I
>>> am not causing any additional issues, the tags (aka version numbers) for the release will be as
>>> follows:
>>>
>>>     2.65.0-b2
>>>
>> I may not have been all there this morning when I wrote this response. Here's what will be happening:
>>
>>      1) The "release" branch will be renamed "2.65.0"
>>      2) The next tag will be "v2.65.0-b2"
>>      3) The beta 1 tag will NOT be renamed.
>>
>> The one question I have remaining is: Are there any issues with removing the leading zero from the
>> minor release number? Should it be 2.065.0 instead?
>>
>> Hopefully, with the answer to the previous question, this puts an end to all discussions pertaining
>> to branching, tags, and naming contentions so we can focus on the things that really matter.
>
> Why not call the branch 2.065, like it was for a while and similar to every other branch and build number we've used forever?  It shouldn't contain the trailing .0 as the branch is for the entire 2.065 series, not just one build.  I'm less concerned with the leading 0 in the second tier, though that naming scheme has been used for the entire life of the D project and would only cause problems if we somehow get more than 999 releases.  I see no reason to change it.
You got it. Lets put this horse to bed. 2.065 it is.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

El 24/01/14 21:37, Andrew Edwards ha escrit:
> The one question I have remaining is: Are there any issues with removing the leading zero from the minor release number? Should it be 2.065.0 instead?

No problem on Debian for removing leading zero.

-- 
Jordi Sayol
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 1/24/2014 1:53 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
> On 1/24/14, 4:34 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Why not call the branch 2.065, like it was for a while and similar to every other branch and build number we've used forever?  It shouldn't contain the trailing .0 as the branch is for the entire 2.065 series, not just one build.  I'm less concerned with the leading 0 in the second tier, though that naming scheme has been used for the entire life of the D project and would only cause problems if we somehow get more than 999 releases.  I see no reason to change it.
> You got it. Lets put this horse to bed. 2.065 it is.


+1 Let's do it.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 1/24/14, 10:50 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> On 1/24/2014 1:53 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
>> On 1/24/14, 4:34 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not call the branch 2.065, like it was for a while and similar to every other branch and build number we've used forever?  It shouldn't contain the trailing .0 as the branch is for the entire 2.065 series, not just one build.  I'm less concerned with the leading 0 in the second tier, though that naming scheme has been used for the entire life of the D project and would only cause problems if we somehow get more than 999 releases.  I see no reason to change it.
>> You got it. Lets put this horse to bed. 2.065 it is.
>
>
> +1 Let's do it.

Already done.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta

On 1/24/2014 7:53 PM, Andrew Edwards wrote:
>
> Already done.

Me like.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta